Posted on 05/30/2004 11:53:03 AM PDT by RnMomof7
There are some that have ears , but can not hear, then there are some that cover their ears so they will not hear..
Palmer, and several members of the GRPL, have stated that God predestined and foreordained every sin that every man would ever commit. Not just foreknew them, but caused them to occur.
From the end of part 3 of the article:
"But haven't you established the doctrine of free-will and disposed of election if you assent man must repent and believe and it is his own act?" No, we have neither proven free-will nor disproved election since it is impossible to do either. We have merely stated exactly what the Bible says a man must do in order to be saved.
The author would have done well to stop at this point. Everything that follows is mere speculation. Going into what man is able or unable to do seems to be an attempt to minimize or discount the first three parts. I seems rather obvious that if "the Bible says [what] a man must do in order to be saved", man is able to do what is required.
The author seems to be making an attempt, in the last three parts, to explain away the truth he recognizes in the first three parts.
In essence, he is claiming that a man is incapable of doing what he earlier states a man must do in order to be saved. Surely God would not require a man to do something He created him to be unable to do. Such a position is so nonsensical on its face, that one should not even require an explanation.
To whom was Christ addressing this statement?
In essence, he is claiming that a man is incapable of doing what he earlier states a man must do in order to be saved. Surely God would not require a man to do something He created him to be unable to do. Such a position is so nonsensical on its face, that one should not even require an explanation.
You do realize that you just posited Pelagius' argument don't you.
Palmer, and several members of the GRPL, have stated that God predestined and foreordained every sin that every man would ever commit. Not just foreknew them, but caused them to occur.
Of course God ordained them. Otherwise, he would not be sovereign. Yet in so doing, His motives were pure. See Joseph's comment regarding his brothers sin in Gen 50. Their attitude was evil, but God's was pure for the salvation of many. Ditto, with those who crucified Christ. God's motives were pure and holy - to save many, he did not spare His own son. Man's motives were evil and worthy of judgement, they crucified the Lord of Glory. I could continue. The answer is given in Romans 9: God's purpose was totally holy - to make known his grace to the objects of His mercy by bearing with the objects of His wrath. Man's attitude was evil, to rebel against God.
You do realize the Arminian who believes in simple foreknowledge has the same problem. In their system, if God knew man would be sinful and created him as anything other than a robot incapable of sin, makes God the author of sin. The only solution to the problem of evil is the one I suggested and is taught in Scripture. God does all from pure motives. Man can do the same acts from evil motives and be guilty of sin. God is both sovereign and holy.
Again, this is not hyper Calvinism. Hypercalvinism is denying the command to evangelize, because God will fix it anyway.
I also cited the book and page number concerning Edwin Palmer. "
You have got be one of the most intellectually DISHONEST people that I have run into.
You continue to make these false assertions only to be refuted time and time again.
I only need dust off an old post that I have saved for these very purposes:
The only citations from Palmers book that you have provided in order to "prove" that he is a "hyper-Calvinist" was here: Post #98 on the "NIV Footnotes" thread. In that post, you were attempting to show that Palmer was a hyper-Calvinist by quoting him saying that all things are foreordained by God.Your contention was that a "hyper-Calvinist" was a person who believed that all things -including all sin- were foreordained by God. It should also be noted that even though you never gave the definition of "hyper-Calvinist" in your own words -you attributed the correct definition of "hyper-Calvinist" to Philip Johnson's A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism website.
Nowhere does Philip Johnson define "hyper-Calvinism" as a belief that all things -including all sin- are foreordained by God.
In fact, in the very next post (Post #99), I showed that the Belgic Confession as well as the Heidelberg Catechism profess this very truth.
A few months later, you attempted to prove your contention one more time by quoting Palmer in Post #290 of the "Predestination: Are You Just a Pawn" thread.
Once again, I will note, that this is an attempt to link Palmers belief that God foreordained all things -including sin- as "hyper-Calvinist". That was never one of Philip Johnson's criteria for being a "hyper-Calvinist".
Then, you attempted to repost your first quotation of Edwin Palmer in your Post #99 on "The Institutes Book 1, Chapter 3" thread.
In my response Post #101 I noted that the belief that God has foreordained or predetermined all things -including all sin- is basic to Calvinism. I quoted Calvin himself as professing this very belief. In addition to my previous quotations from the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, I also quoted from the Westminster Confession that also supports this belief.
You never quoted from Palmer again. However, you did continue on your attempt to equate "hyper-Calvinism" with the belief that God foreordained/predetermined all things -including all sin.
In response to this, in my Post #617 of the "Arminianism -- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Pelagianism" thread, I made a summary of no less than 7 major Calvinist confessions that professed the belief that God foreordained/predetermined all things -including all sin. I also included this same belief as expressed by John Calvin himself.
So, for review, you have claimed that Edwin Palmer is a "hyper-Calvinist". While you steadfastly refused to define "hyper-Calvinism" yourself, you did defer to Philip Johnson's definition of "hyper-Calvinism". Philip Johnson never equates "hyper-Calvinism" with the belief that all things -including all sin- are predetermined/foreordained by God. That belief is part of mainstream Calvinism. It is not regulated ONLY to "hyper-Calvinism".
So, NO! -you have not provided any proof that Edwin Palmer is a "hyper-Calvinist" -only your silly notion Edwin Palmer's belief that all things -including all sin- were predetermined/foreordained by God is "hyper-Calvinism". That is not "hyper-Calvinism" -that is Basic Reformed Theology 101.So, put up or shut your trap!
If you have a quote that shows Edwin Palmer to be a "hyper-Calvinist", then post it. If not, then shut up. (remember: "hyper-Calvinism is NOT the belief that God foreordained/predetermined all things -including all sin.)
Jean
Thanks for the history of this discussion. You are correct, as usual.
Click HERE to see the original.
Those links work fine.
Jean
Love the Bonhoffer tagline.
I haven't heard much of the "Hitler" argument since I've been using it.
It especially rings true when one realizes that it most likely was Hitler himself that ordered Bonhoeffer to be killed without any evidence whatsoever of his wrong doing -except a forged confession.
That being the case, the testimony of Bonhoeffer is all the more meaningful.
God really did mean it for good!
Jean
(And I have no doubt that there will be a next time.)
Jean
Part of "the cost of discipleship" is trusting God when circumstances are tough. I find the testimony of Joseph and Job and modern day believers like Jim Elliot and Bonhoeffer to be very helpful during times when I face difficult circumstances.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe you are admitting that God predestined/foreordain every sin that every man has or will commit. Is that correct?
BTW, I think you meant to say 'relegated' rather than 'regulated'. It helps to be precise.
I think are getting to show some obcessive-compulsive behaviors.
As for intellectual dishonesty, you must be confusing me with Woody.
What do you have to say about the authors statement that there are a "hundren variations" of Calvinism? At least he is attempting to be intellectually honest.
Are you in agreement or disagreement with this authors first three parts? Based on what you have written in the past, I would guess you are in disagreement. Are you?
Are you saying that evangelism will make a difference in the number of people who will be saved and who those individuals will be? If God has predestined/foreordained those who would be saved and those who would be condemned to hell, why wouldn't God "fiz it anyway"?
fiz=fix
I am making my argument and no one else's. I've not read Pelagius, so I do not know everything he wrote, the context of his writings, nor whether he adapted/changed any on his positions during his life.
From the Article: God and man must both do something before a man can be saved. Hyper-Calvinism denies the necessity of human action, and Arminianism denies the true nature of the Divine action.
While I agee that you have identified one aspect of hyperCalvinism, the author of this artcle seems to identify another/additional trait of hyperCalvinism. Keep in mind that in this article, the author does not make even a single mention of evangelism, so hyperCalvinism must encompass something more and/or different than just the command to evangelism.
Amen to your #19 and #24! Right on the dot!
You really should read it, ctd. It would keep you from making mistakes like you just did. And I also see that you're trying to give your self a back door, just in case. I think you're going to find out it doesn't work...
I think you trust just a little too much in that intellect you keep bragging about...
There may have been some confusion. I was summarizing the author's argument and a reasonable inference. I then pointed out that it was not logical. In that I have not read Pelagius, I'm not sure exactly who's comment you are associating with Pelagian theology.
Having grown up in the FreeWill Baptist Church I can confidently attest to the fact that it is not what they teach! Where do people get these ideas? I suppose all faiths have to endure the misrepresentations of others about what they are supposed to believe!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.